First of all, a request. Yes, assigning awards for quality ignores so many great artists and craftsmen. Yes, time often is not kind to some of these decisions. Yes, the Oscars is crass and self-promoting and blah blah blah.

We know these things. Repeating these truths ad nauseum is just thread-shitting. Please refrain.

Because it still can be fun and compelling to see good work recognized, especially work that's truly remarkable or work that's on the margins and even a bit obscure. So the horse race leading up to the Academy Awards will be tracked here.

The New York Film Critics Circle and The National Board of Review (not critics, but the oldest film award-giving body in the US) just announced their winners. Here are how things stand so far:

The LA Film Critics are the next big critics group, and then it will be lots of other regional critics groups piping in before we start hearing from the guilds and then the Golden Globes.

Of course, ZDT (or 0D30) and DJANGO don't get released for another few weeks (as does LES MIZ, which is bound to get some attention, too), so I'll have to reserve judgment, but it should be a very interesting year, with some heavy Academy favorites (Bigelow, Spielberg, Ang Lee, Tom Hooper, Ben Affleck) competing with some other highly-regarded independent types (David O. Russell, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson), all with very strong works this year and Tarantino being the obvious wild-card. The one true left-field film that could be a contender, BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD, has some tough competition. But who knows?

I knew that ZDT had some buzz going on for it, but I'm surprised to see it win BP - by both groups, no less. I'm just going by the trailer but I have a hard time seeing it being better than some of the other contenders like Lincoln, Argo, Les Miz, Django, etc.

Also - Matthew McConaughey? Really? I guess having not seen either of those movies I can't really judge, but that seems surprising.

I knew that ZDT had some buzz going on for it, but I'm surprised to see it win BP - by both groups, no less. I'm just going by the trailer but I have a hard time seeing it being better than some of the other contenders like Lincoln, Argo, Les Miz, Django, etc.

Also - Matthew McConaughey? Really? I guess having not seen either of those movies I can't really judge, but that seems surprising.

I don't think I'll ever get around to seeing MAGIC MIKE, though it is directed by Soderbergh, who directed Julia Roberts & Benicio Del Toro to Oscars. BERNIE is cute and Jack Black will probably get a Golden Globe nod (Actor/Comedy), but I don't think MM has a showy enough role in that to get an Academy notice (the Oscars, unlike the critics, don't recognize cumulative work in a year; one nod = one film)

I knew that ZDT had some buzz going on for it, but I'm surprised to see it win BP - by both groups, no less. I'm just going by the trailer but I have a hard time seeing it being better than some of the other contenders like Lincoln, Argo, Les Miz, Django, etc.

I don't think I'll ever get around to seeing MAGIC MIKE, though it is directed by Soderbergh, who directed Julia Roberts & Benicio Del Toro to Oscars. BERNIE is cute and Jack Black will probably get a Golden Globe nod (Actor/Comedy), but I don't think MM has a showy enough role in that to get an Academy notice (the Oscars, unlike the critics, don't recognize cumulative work in a year; one nod = one film)

Well...I'm pretty sure there have been catch-up Oscars in the acting categories, but it's uncommon, and he won't be getting one.

Well...I'm pretty sure there have been catch-up Oscars in the acting categories, but it's uncommon, and he won't be getting one.

Agreed! With Leo in the mix, he joins previous winners Tommy Lee Jones, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Robert De Niro as likely rivals in the supporting category. The last time Leo was in that category (not lead) was for WHAT'S EATING GILBERT GRAPE (the same year Jones won for THE FUGITIVE).

How many exotic dancer roles have been Oscar nodded in the past? The only one that comes to mind offhand is Natalie Portman in CLOSER.

How many exotic dancer roles have been Oscar nodded in the past? The only one that comes to mind offhand is Natalie Portman in CLOSER.

Marisa Tomei in The Wrestler. There are probably more, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. They've nominated a lot of hookers, though.

I'm still scratching my head at the acclaim for Magic Mike and McConaughey. The movie itself has a very engaging first half but descends into standard melodrama in the second, weighed down by an non-compelling romantic subplot and the incredibly wooden Cody Horn. McConaughey was fine, but nothing special. I'd much rather see him nominated for Bernie. (Although I don't think either of the performances were worthy of a nomination.)

I thought for sure one of the New York groups would go for Lincoln. I'm not surprised that Les Miserables is getting blanked so far; that kind of movie usually doesn't do as well with critics' groups. But the guilds will almost certainly embrace it.

I think the LA critics will choose either Argo or The Master. The former will appeal to those in and around Hollywood, and the latter is from a director whose work has been closely tied to Southern California in the past. That kind of stuff counts more than you'd think.

I think the LA critics will choose either Argo or The Master. The former will appeal to those in and around Hollywood, and the latter is from a director whose work has been closely tied to Southern California in the past. That kind of stuff counts more than you'd think.

I think some critics groups also don't want to be seen as bandwagoners, just going with the same choices others have. In certain years (L.A. Confidential, The Social Network), the choice may seem inevitable, but this year has a nice range, so I'm inclined to agree that the PTA film holds a good shot at Pic, Actor, and/or Director with LA.

I think if one film automatically suffers from ZDT's potential domination, it's ARGO (which I found pretty lightweight), since the themes and setting are pretty similar, while by all accounts, the Bigelow packs much more of a punch. With 10 potential pic nominees, there's still room for the Affleck in that category, but its odds in most of the others look pretty bleak now.

Another notable thing about the LA critics: they're more open to foreign-language performances than any other critics group, especially from actresses. I'd look for Emmanuelle Riva from Michael Haneke's Amour to be a serious contender for a Best Actress win.

Another notable thing about the LA critics: they're more open to foreign-language performances than any other critics group, especially from actresses. I'd look for Emmanuelle Riva from Michael Haneke's Amour to be a serious contender for a Best Actress win.

Sadly, most of the time, foreign-language actress performances are contenders because of the dearth of English-language roles to consider. Jean-Louis Trintignant would be in pretty good shape too (he's got classic name recognition on his side) if Lead Actor wasn't so heavily congested. The real question is whether Haneke might pull a Director nod from that branch--or maybe screenplay, which is where Foreign Language films most often get some recognition.

Good call on Tomei, btw. *swoon* There's also Valerie Perreine in LENNY and Mary Steenburgen in MELVIN & HOWARD. Was Penelope Cruz in NINE? I've blocked that movie from my memory. None of THE FULL MONTY cast was nominated, though.

Before moving on from the NBR, here are their lists, which I always love. The winners aren't on these lists because they've already won.

NBR's (other) Top Films (in alphabetical order)

ARGO
BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD
DJANGO UNCHAINED
LES MISÉRABLES
LINCOLN
LOOPER
THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER
PROMISED LAND
SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

NBR's (other) Top 5 Foreign Language Films (In Alphabetical Order)

BARBARA
THE INTOUCHABLES
THE KID WITH A BIKE
NO
WAR WITCH

NBR's (other) Top 5 Documentaries (In Alphabetical Order)

AI WEIWEI: NEVER SORRY
DETROPIA
THE GATEKEEPERS
THE INVISIBLE WAR
ONLY THE YOUNG

NBR's Top 10 Independent Films (In Alphabetical Order)

ARBITRAGE
BERNIE
COMPLIANCE
END OF WATCH
HELLO I MUST BE GOING
LITTLE BIRDS
MOONRISE KINGDOM
ON THE ROAD
QUARTET
SLEEPWALK WITH ME

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo Tomasi

I think the LA critics will choose either Argo or The Master. The former will appeal to those in and around Hollywood, and the latter is from a director whose work has been closely tied to Southern California in the past. That kind of stuff counts more than you'd think.

Also - Matthew McConaughey? Really? I guess having not seen either of those movies I can't really judge, but that seems surprising.

Matthew McConaughey is having a hell of a great year with Bernie (playing an overzealous lawyer), Magic Mike (a business owner and semi-retired exotic dancer), The Paperboy (a way-too-trusting closeted gay reporter) and Killer Joe (an icy-cold detective who's a hired killer in his spare time) all released this year, and he was fantastic in all of them. He notched his career up in quality several levels last year with The Lincoln Lawyer and he's continuing to soar (he did have several good roles before then too though). The time will come when no one will say "Matthew McConaughey? Really?"

The Boston critics are officially my favorite ones this season thanks to their giving Best Supporting Actor to Ezra Miller from The Perks of Being a Wallflower. Such a wonderful, deserving performance in a movie that's way, way off the Oscar radar, sadly.

I browse it occasionally with the delight of a gourmand paging through favorite cookbooks.

Great link! Thanks!

I'm encouraged that the Wes Anderson ranks second (dubiously) based on the math they've assigned, but I know anything more than an Original Screenplay nod is wishful thinking. However, since most of the fiercest competition is in Adapted, the temptation to give another Coppola an Oscar might be too irresistible.

For anyone who says it might be too soon to give Bigelow a second Oscar for a similarly-themed film, just remember that Oliver Stone won Director 3 years apart for 2 Vietnam films. Interestingly, the second award (Born on the 4th of July) was an Oscar split, with Picture going to Driving Miss Daisy that year. I wouldn't be surprised if Lincoln did something similar with Bigelow.

I'm guessing Amy Adams will lose her 4th nomination in this category. At this rate she's going (she's not even 40 yet), I wouldn't be surprised if she exceeds Thelma Ritter's Oscar record of 6 nods in supporting (note: Ritter never won).

Besides the love for Moonrise Kingdom and Bernie, I was very happy to see Gina Carano for Haywire and Jake Gyllenhaal for End of Watch in there. Plus, they did what AMPAS was too chickenshit to do, nominate The Central Park Five and West of Memphis.

Here are the nominations for the St. Louis Film Critics. I have quibbles with some things left out, but mostly, they fucking rock!

The Screen Actors Guild nominations come out tomorrow. Would someone else please post the nominations? I'll be at work all day and going to the movies tomorrow night, so I won't know the nominations until late in the evening. Boo.

The Screen Actors Guild nominations come out tomorrow. Would someone else please post the nominations? I'll be at work all day and going to the movies tomorrow night, so I won't know the nominations until late in the evening. Boo.

Strange that the LINCOLN ensemble list is missing a few notable actors in high-profile roles: Gloria Reuben, Tim Blake Nelson, Lee Pace, and John Hawkes (who's in the lead Actor category for another film) in particular, though you can add Jared Harris and Jackie Earle Haley to that list easily.

Did SAG get to see DJANGO in time? Two of its players are lead contenders in Supporting but both are MIA here.

I suspect Kidman is in because of name recognition, since nobody is talking about THE PAPERBOY at all (or at least, not in a good way). Ditto Mirren.

Though Best Ensemble is not the same as Best Pic, some people equate the two, which puts ZERO DARK THIRTY at a possible disadvantage.

Strange that the LINCOLN ensemble list is missing a few notable actors in high-profile roles: Gloria Reuben, Tim Blake Nelson, Lee Pace, and John Hawkes (who's in the lead Actor category for another film) in particular, though you can add Jared Harris and Jackie Earle Haley to that list easily.

The rule regarding ensembles is that the only people who are eligible for them are the actors who received their own solo credit card at either the beginning or the end of the movie. If you're grouped with another person, too bad. So Spader gets in, but the two guys that he shares almost every scene with (Nelson and Hawkes) don't.

I understand that you can't include every single person actor in the movie, but there's got to be a better way to do it, as it always leads to some really bizarre-looking ensembles. In 2010, Josh Pence was included as part of the Social Network ensemble, even thought we never even saw his face in the movie. (He "played" one of the Winklevoss twins, but Armie Hammer's face was digitally pasted over Pence's.) Last year, the Midnight in Paris ensemble included one-scene wonder Adrien Brody but not Corey Stoll, whom a lot of people thought was the highlight of the movie as Hemingway.

The rule regarding ensembles is that the only people who are eligible for them are the actors who received their own solo credit card at either the beginning or the end of the movie. If you're grouped with another person, too bad. So Spader gets in, but the two guys that he shares almost every scene with (Nelson and Hawkes) don't.

I understand that you can't include every single person actor in the movie, but there's got to be a better way to do it, as it always leads to some really bizarre-looking ensembles. In 2010, Josh Pence was included as part of the Social Network ensemble, even thought we never even saw his face in the movie. (He "played" one of the Winklevoss twins, but Armie Hammer's face was digitally pasted over Pence's.) Last year, the Midnight in Paris ensemble included one-scene wonder Adrien Brody but not Corey Stoll, whom a lot of people thought was the highlight of the movie as Hemingway.

Such a weird rule.

Yes, I agree and I suppose for arbitration purposes, it's clear and easy, but it also leads to greater injustices. I remember that THE AVIATOR gave SAG nods to glorified cameos Jude Law and Gwen Stefani because they got those same single title cards.

Of course, with a cast as large as LINCOLN's, they could rarely indulge that requirement, at the expense of some deserving players.

I suspect Kidman is in because of name recognition, since nobody is talking about THE PAPERBOY at all (or at least, not in a good way). Ditto Mirren.

I was very pleased to see both names on the SAG list. You saying they only got in because of "name recognition" is as offensive as talk about "awards bait" movies. Seriously, have you SEEN either movie? Both performances absolutely deserve recognition and I'm glad they got some big time recognition. Maggie Smith was by far the best thing about The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (well, Tom Wilkinson too) in an ensemble cast full of great British actors. The movie itself was a trifle but fun, and a bit deeper than might have been expected.

And boo on anyone who is dissing The Paperboy. I loved it. It's overbaked Southern Gothic Melodrama at its absolute finest (and I mean all of that as high praise, not snark), and so what if some people don't like that kind of thing. Not everything is for everybody. It has a big old "Kick Me" sign on its back partially because of who directed it (Lee Daniels), partially because of who stars in it (besides Kidman, there's Matthew McConaughey, Zac Efron and John Cusack) and who produced it (Pedro Almodovar), and partially because it's, well, an overbaked Southern Melodrama, with sex and violence galore. My attitude is, and? I liked it for exactly what it was. It's playing again later this month at the Gene Siskel Film Center (a place not known for showing really bad movies) and I'm going to see it a 2nd time. One big reason is to see Nicole Kidman's performance again. Her role is not at all sympathetic. For most of the film she's a dimbulb and you want to slap some sense into her, but it's a character that has more complex depth than you think. Charlotte Bless is unlike any other character Kidman has ever played.

I was very pleased to see both names on the SAG list. You saying they only got in because of "name recognition" is as offensive as talk about "awards bait" movies. Seriously, have you SEEN either movie? Both performances absolutely deserve recognition and I'm glad they got some big time recognition. Maggie Smith was by far the best thing about The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (well, Tom Wilkinson too) in an ensemble cast full of great British actors. The movie itself was a trifle but fun, and a bit deeper than might have been expected.

And boo on anyone who is dissing The Paperboy. I loved it. It's overbaked Southern Gothic Melodrama at its absolute finest (and I mean all of that as high praise, not snark), and so what if some people don't like that kind of thing. Not everything is for everybody. It has a big old "Kick Me" sign on its back partially because of who directed it (Lee Daniels), partially because of who stars in it (besides Kidman, there's Matthew McConaughey, Zac Efron and John Cusack) and who produced it (Pedro Almodovar), and partially because it's, well, an overbaked Southern Melodrama, with sex and violence galore. My attitude is, and? I liked it for exactly what it was. It's playing again later this month at the Gene Siskel Film Center (a place not known for showing really bad movies) and I'm going to see it a 2nd time. One big reason is to see Nicole Kidman's performance again. Her role is not at all sympathetic. For most of the film she's a dimbulb and you want to slap some sense into her, but it's a character that has more complex depth than you think. Charlotte Bless is unlike any other character Kidman has ever played.

So, good on SAG to recognize another of Kidman's brave performances.

No offense intended; I work in the film festival circuit now so I know plenty of people who have seen the Kidman pic and don't know *anybody* who had a nice word to say about the film. Given the absence of Adams or Weaver (among others), the selection seems on paper an obvious beneficiary of name recognition (today's Golden Globe nod notwithstanding).

I could be wrong, of course, but that phenomenon *does* exist you know--Meryl Streep (great actress as she is) has been on the receiving end of it with Oscar for years. Propping up familiar names in unremarkable parts (Mirren over Riva, Weisz, or Wilson) is usually a product of laziness and unadventurous thinking, IMHO.

I'm very interested in seeing what happens with Django Unchained's supporting actors. It seems like Leonardo DiCaprio was initially the one that a lot of people were predicting (villain, playing against type, never won). But then Christoph Waltz came in and starting landing in first or second place for a lot of the critics prizes (with a handful of citations for DiCaprio). SAG and the Golden Globes didn't offer any insight, since they were both shut out for the former and they both made it for the latter. Could they split the vote and both lose our? Or could both of them make it in (a pretty rare occurrence for supporting actors in recent years)?

With the Drama/Comedy-Musical split, it gives more room for nominees, so fewer conspicuous names missing, though no love for the AMOUR cast or BEASTS in any capacity.

I haven't seen THE IMPOSSIBLE yet but Ewan seemed well-positioned to score a Supporting nod there. His best chance for attention was with the HPFA (which he got, but for lead of another film), so with dueling DJANGO's and De Niro MIA, the Supporting Actor race will be a very interesting one indeed.

I think the best hope THE SESSIONS had for a nod outside of the acting categories was also here (because of the split) so getting unseated by DJANGO doesn't bode as well for it. Jack Black was great fun in BERNIE so he's a welcome addition.

Of the 5 screenplays nominated, 4 are adaptations and one (Quentin's) original. That gives room for the Anderson boys (Paul Thomas and Wes) who are absent here despite some mention of their films (though not enough, IMHO).

I don't even recognize any of the other song nominees. SKYFALL is likely the first Bond film to get an Oscar nod since the Roger Moore era, but no song has ever won before. I haven't seen Les Miz (obviously) so don't know how that song plays, but it seems likely to fall between those two.

Sorry to see PARANORMAN couldn't even make the cut; it's the film whose animation I enjoyed the most this year (probably because it's old school) though I suspect it will fare better with AMPAS

I'm very interested in seeing what happens with Django Unchained's supporting actors. It seems like Leonardo DiCaprio was initially the one that a lot of people were predicting (villain, playing against type, never won). But then Christoph Waltz came in and starting landing in first or second place for a lot of the critics prizes (with a handful of citations for DiCaprio). SAG and the Golden Globes didn't offer any insight, since they were both shut out for the former and they both made it for the latter. Could they split the vote and both lose our? Or could both of them make it in (a pretty rare occurrence for supporting actors in recent years)?

I'm just grateful Bardem wasn't included. A fine actor in an undernourished part that has no real business being in contention. But I'm still amazed that Arkin's getting traction in a part that he could do in his sleep (though I find the entire film underwhelming and the adulation OTT). I'd rather see Goodman there, though there's not much of a better case for him.

This category is usually an embarrassment of riches when it comes to viable performances, so who emerges victorious for DJANGO (if any) will be fun to see. Haven't seen the film so can't say personally, but columnist Dave Poland is openly campaigning for Samuel L. Jackson from the same film, so who knows? I think that could make the ultimate winner unpredictable too--it's been 18 years since Jones won, 31 since De Niro did (though he has 2 Oscars already). A real interesting mix.

I'm just grateful Bardem wasn't included. A fine actor in an undernourished part that has no real business being in contention. But I'm still amazed that Arkin's getting traction in a part that he could do in his sleep (though I find the entire film underwhelming and the adulation OTT). I'd rather see Goodman there, though there's not much of a better case for him.

Oh, I am so with you on both of these points (although I like Argo overall more than you do). Arkin's status as a near-lock is an absolute head-scratcher. Scoot McNairy was the MVP from that movie for me, but really, no one is even within shouting distance of being worthy of a nomination. And while Bardem is good, doesn't it feel like we've been seeing that character and performance a lot lately from a bunch of different movies? The theatrical, chatty, just-this-side-of-campy villain? I'm thinking of Guy Pearce in Lawless and Tom Hollander in Hanna, for other recent examples. Like I said, Bardem is fine, but I'm not really seeing anything that makes him stand out from that crowd.

No offense intended; I work in the film festival circuit now so I know plenty of people who have seen the Kidman pic and don't know *anybody* who had a nice word to say about the film.

Whether they liked the movie or not, we're talking about Kidman's performance specifically. And forgive me for saying so, but a lot of film festival people are snobs, and I wouldn't expect them to like The Paperboy for all the reasons I listed above. Being a film snob isn't always a bad thing, I'm guilty of it myself at times, but having eclectic taste is way more fun.

Listen, now you DO know somebody who has a nice word to say about the film, Me. But that doesn't matter. It's Kidman's performance that's being recognized here, not the movie itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MovieMogul

Given the absence of Adams or Weaver (among others), the selection seems on paper an obvious beneficiary of name recognition (today's Golden Globe nod notwithstanding).

Notwithstanding? Kidman is nominated twice in two days for the same role and it's only because of name recognition? Ok, if it had been a Golden Globe nod only, I still wouldn't have agreed with you but I wouldn't have argued. But the Screen Actors Guild too? You're actually accusing the Screen Actors Guild of nominating someone just for name recognition? Try this instead: it's a complex role unlike any she's ever played and enough voters recognized her skill and wanted to reward her.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MovieMogul

I could be wrong, of course, but that phenomenon *does* exist you know--Meryl Streep (great actress as she is) has been on the receiving end of it with Oscar for years. Propping up familiar names in unremarkable parts (Mirren over Riva, Weisz, or Wilson) is usually a product of laziness and unadventurous thinking, IMHO.

I liked Mirren in Hitchcock but I understand. Btw, Wilson? My mind is blanking for some reason. I keep thinking Rita Wilson but she hasn't been in anything this year. I haven't seen the Riva performance. Are you talking about Rachel Weisz in The Deep Blue Sea? I saw that (with the director there) and was very impressed, but what can you do? Lots of people every year get left behind. I'm still bitter about Courtney Love and Bjork.

In any case, Kidman doesn't play an unremarkable part and name recognition has nothing to do with her nominations.

Thanks for posting the SAG and GG nominations. I forgot that the GGs were announced today. I'm so thrilled about Jack Black. I never paid much attention to him before. I'd seen a few of his movies but, yeah, whatever. I skipped many more because they just looked stupid. I fell so in love with Bernie though that now he's one of my new favorite people. Not enough to go back and watch the stupid-looking movies, but enough to root for him to continue taking interesting roles and working with great directors. Too bad Bernie was knocked out of the Comedy nominations because of...Salmon Fishing In The Yemen? Bluh.

I'm obviously happy about Nicole. I'm happy for The Master nominations. It's funny that Maggie Smith was nominated for Quartet (which I'll be seeing in a couple of weeks) instead of Marigold, but Judi Dench got in for Marigold and not Skyfall. I'm very happy that A Royal Affair was nominated. It and The Intouchables are the only foreign language films I've seen so far.

Notwithstanding? Kidman is nominated twice in two days for the same role and it's only because of name recognition? Ok, if it had been a Golden Globe nod only, I still wouldn't have agreed with you but I wouldn't have argued. But the Screen Actors Guild too? You're actually accusing the Screen Actors Guild of nominating someone just for name recognition?

Why not? In 2006, the Emmy awards (which have a similar nominating process to SAG, but with a much longer history and more exclusive membership) nominated Ellen Burstyn for a part that was less than 30 seconds long total screen time. Why? Everyone agreed that it was because she was Ellen Burstyn, and few people had actually seen the film, but rather responded to the name.

I'm not saying Kidman is exactly analogous. But to say that SAG is completely impervious to these same impulses and biases is ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise

And forgive me for saying so, but a lot of film festival people are snobs, and I wouldn't expect them to like The Paperboy for all the reasons I listed above. Being a film snob isn't always a bad thing, I'm guilty of it myself at times, but having eclectic taste is way more fun.

Boy, talk about a broad brush! So I'm a film snob? Because I'm no different than my colleagues. You call them that and you call me that, too.

I'll say this--I've worked in the film industry for the last two decades, dedicating my life to preserving and celebrating motion pictures of all stripes and varieties, and I am no different than valued colleagues I know personally on four continents, many of whose service and influence is far greater than my own. But, two film degrees notwithstanding, I guess my tastes aren't "eclectic" enough to walk that fine line that you so skillfully balance. Too bad I'm just not that goddamn special.

My opinion is my own. I've never claimed it to be better than anyone's. There are people whose opinions I trust or respect more than others, but I know I've come to you defense more than once here, recognizing enthusiasm where others saw "elitism".

Well, I accept your "apology". There are a lot of cool, interesting, funny, and incredibly smart people here at the Dope, so I wanted to thank you for reminding me of the tone and attitude I don't miss, and the reason why I don't frequent here much anymore. So while I'll continue to participate in this thread (and others periodically), I'm afraid that I'm through with you.

Good lord, you're taking my stupid posts way too seriously. I clumsily try to defend a performance I liked and why I was happy with the nominations and look what happened. I fucked it all the way up one side and down the other. Please forgive me. I am truly, deeply sorry. You and your posts are 1000 times more important to threads like this, and the Dope in general, than I could ever hope to be. Be done with me and my idiocy, I accept that, but please please please do not post less or be done with this message board. Your insights are far too valuable and interesting.

Anyhoo, getting back to the topic at hand, it'll be interesting to see how the controversy plays out for Zero Dark Thirty. The Christian Science Monitor issued a strong negative view (the only one so far) because of the ambiguity in its presentation of torture. There's also been a lot of Twitter noise and condemnatory blogging about it as well, and yet the critics are almost universally in love with the film. But Academy voters? Hard to say...this may play out like The Social Network.

Anyhoo, getting back to the topic at hand, it'll be interesting to see how the controversy plays out for Zero Dark Thirty. The Christian Science Monitor issued a strong negative view (the only one so far) because of the ambiguity in its presentation of torture. There's also been a lot of Twitter noise and condemnatory blogging about it as well, and yet the critics are almost universally in love with the film. But Academy voters? Hard to say...this may play out like The Social Network.

Andrew Sullivan, who has been extremely vocal about the war crimes committed in the US's name under the Bush administration. came out with a cogent and interesting defense of the film here. There are some details about the film that might constitute Spoilers to some, so reader beware.

Anyhoo, getting back to the topic at hand, it'll be interesting to see how the controversy plays out for Zero Dark Thirty. The Christian Science Monitor issued a strong negative view (the only one so far) because of the ambiguity in its presentation of torture. There's also been a lot of Twitter noise and condemnatory blogging about it as well, and yet the critics are almost universally in love with the film. But Academy voters? Hard to say...this may play out like The Social Network.

Andrew Sullivan, who has been extremely vocal about the war crimes committed in the US's name under the Bush administration. came out with a cogent and interesting defense of the film here. There are some details about the film that might constitute Spoilers to some, so reader beware.

I'm looking forward to the film a great deal.

I'm also looking forward to it. It's been interesting to watch the public furor over this, including a condemning letter to Sony from three Senators. I also noted that user scores ramped up on IMDb and Metacritic before the movie was even released; IMDb for example was at 6.6 this morning, driven essentially by 2/3 10s and 1/3 0s.

Two conspicuous absences are HOLY MOTORS and CLOUD ATLAS, but this branch has a reputation for being unpredictable in this category sometimes.

It is ridiculous that Holy Motors is not there. Cloud Atlas I can understand, because while a lot of the makeup was very good (especially in the postapocalyptic section) and more than worthy of a nomination, I wouldn't be surprised if voters refused to spring for it based on the terrible Asian makeup. But Holy Motors has so much fantastic work in it that's impossible to miss. Hell, you even see the main actor removing and applying the makeup at some points. I have to assume that it's such a low-profile movie that voters didn't bother watching it (even though foreign movies have made the shortlist and nomination list in the past).

It is ridiculous that Holy Motors is not there. Cloud Atlas I can understand, because while a lot of the makeup was very good (especially in the postapocalyptic section) and more than worthy of a nomination, I wouldn't be surprised if voters refused to spring for it based on the terrible Asian makeup. But Holy Motors has so much fantastic work in it that's impossible to miss. Hell, you even see the main actor removing and applying the makeup at some points. I have to assume that it's such a low-profile movie that voters didn't bother watching it (even though foreign movies have made the shortlist and nomination list in the past).

Agreed--it's a film that celebrates the transformative power of make-up in the interest of story-telling. And while it's true that the branch has recognized foreign language films before, they were still typically biopics or period films, not something as truly bizarre and experimental as the Carax. Still, sorry to see its exclusion.

As for ATLAS, I didn't find the pseudo-Asian faces any more offputting than the terrible old age work from the nominated A BEAUTIFUL MIND. These nominations are determined from a submitted clip reel (IIRC) so maybe the assembly didn't work to the film's advantages--since while some work is quite good and unpredictable, not all of it is (Hugh Grant's old age make-up was genuinely terrible)

I'm also looking forward to it. It's been interesting to watch the public furor over this, including a condemning letter to Sony from three Senators. I also noted that user scores ramped up on IMDb and Metacritic before the movie was even released; IMDb for example was at 6.6 this morning, driven essentially by 2/3 10s and 1/3 0s.

My guess is that will hinder voting in Hollywood.

The film sounds like it's turning into quite a Rorschach test. For some liberals, it's pro-torture because it refuses to explicitly condemn it. From some conservatives, it serves as a justification for torture, connecting the dots between those scenes and the film's climax. While to others, the film's depiction of torture does not put us in a favorable light at all, regardless of whether it helped or not (which they'll read as ambiguous).

How this impacts voting remains to be seen (and will always remain speculative).

As for the horse race, ZDT and ARGO lead the critics awards for Best Picture, while THE MASTER is now on 3rd. Because of how the preferential balloting works (and the fact that there are up to 10 Picture nominees), enough #1 votes for the PTA film will be enough to get it in the top tier. The amount of support it has will be more easily deciphered (as well as if it pulls in only 1 acting nod or as much as 3). Still, the two films most likely to get the most nominations (and by association, the best shot to pick up the top prize) are LINCOLN and LES MIZ, neither of which have pulled in any in these categories (though plenty in acting)

For Actor, it seems DDL's to lose--except that this would be his 3rd lead Oscar, something no male has ever done before, and Katie Hepburn took a decade longer before she received her third (the only other performer to accomplish this for lead categories). Still, it's hard to imagine any other single performance accumulating enough support to pose a threat. If so, it will be the first acting Oscar for any Spielberg film ever.

That is, unless Tommy Lee Jones wins earlier in the evening. Having seen all the contenders (including DJANGO) now, Robert DeNiro's is by far my favorite and the most moving. But it would be his 3rd Oscar, too (though his first nomination in 2 decades). But TLJ is great fun, and between Arkin, Waltz, Hoffman and Bardem, this category seems well-positioned to have someone definitely getting a repeat award.

Supporting Actress seems like a two-person race, with Field having a slight disadvantage in having two already (besides Hepburn, only Ingrid Bergman and Streep have 3) and Hathaway having a gangbuster year with Batman as well (plus, she's hot, which never hurts). I haven't seen LES MIZ, but I wonder if she has any other "money shot" Oscar moments besides the one being pimped out in every trailer for the film. Even if she doesn't, it is pretty powerful and may be enough.

Best Actress is most up in the air, with the most uncertain final slate, no potential nominee with more than one previous nod to their name (diluting the "owed" impulse that sometimes persists), and the actresses with the most screen time being in the smallest and most obscure of the films. If Riva (AMOUR) and Wallis (BEASTS) both get nominated, it will be the widest age gap between competing nominees ever (around 70 years)

What immediately stands out is that no films from Asia or Africa are represented (though WAR WITCH takes place in the latter).

Our Festival showed 5 of these (the ones with an *) and our theater will be playing 3 more before the Oscars, and while the Romanian film is very good, it's also a challenge and (for some) a bit of a slog. And while the French film has been, relatively speaking, a box office smash overseas, 2012 Cannes Palme d'Or winner AMOUR seems the one to beat (it will be surprising if it doesn't score another nod or two in other categories)--especially since the film is perfectly suited for the Academy's significant demographic of older voters.